Separation of Church and State.

**symatech** · 02-07-2004, 08:39 AM

DISCLAIMER: I dont want anybody calline me a tree hugger or lefty or asshole or ignorant or anything like that for creating this thread. Furthermore, I dont want this to turn into a "bush sucks/bush rocks" debate....the horse is dead. Also, I dont want this into a "there is a god/there's no god" debate. only comments which are pertinent to the topic are welcome. no flamming

Now, I was listening to the radio this morning and they were talking about sex education in schools. Aparantly there is much heated debate between the people who believe it should be taught, and those who claim it should not. They went on further to talk about abstinence. aparantly a great deal of money is poured into promoting abstinence in america, and bush is trying to back somethign like 15million more.

Ok, so what do you all think about this? Do you promote abstinence? Do you think it should be taught in schools? Do you think this agenda is from the church...do you think it is just a shallow hope?

I myself believe that sex education -if taught well- should promote abstaining from sex until you believe you are ready. now obviously kids are very easily swayed, and peer pressure is a killer. so we can safely conclude that even proper sex ed, will result in kids who 'arent ready' still having sex. but is abstinence the answer?

The arguments made against teaching sed ed in school were ridiculous -IMO- but I shall list a few for your input....

sex ed shouldnt be taught because.....

1)a teacher got naked in front of her class to better explain the human body
2)a teacher had sex with the boys in her class to help them in their 'education'
3)a teacher was raped at the end of a class and the kids just sat around saying 'well isnt this what she taught us'

immediately after these arguments were made they were sure to point out that "none of these HAD happened but they COULD happen if we teach sex ed" what the **** is that? to me -imo- that is the most ignorant comment you could possibly make. lots of things COULD happen, but only certain things DO happen. I am inclined to act on my intuition rather than fear.

what do you think? do you think the government should actually ban sex education because the church promotes abstinence?

This is not a cheap shot at bush...just a quote because it pertains to the argument...(in case you forgot see the disclaimer again

"I appreciate that question because I, in the state of Texas, had heard a lot of discussion about a faith-based initiative eroding the important bridge between church and state"

do you bros think faith-based iniative is ever justified? or do you think church and state are rightly separated.

again i, in no way, think the church should have ANY part in running the Union. but thats my opinion. and its not because I "dont believe in god"

again, what do you all think?

**Tock** · 02-07-2004, 09:02 AM

They didn't teach sex ed in my school (graduated in 1973), and it wasn't until after I had been engaged to a woman that I learned what homosexuals were and that I was one.
Since there are a lot of people that get married and later discover what their real sexual orientation is, if they were to cover this topic, it would save a lot of people (children, too) a lot of hassle.
Whether or not they should teach sex ed at all or just leave it up to parents is another question entirely. Parents usually do a lousy job of explaining the birds and the bees, many are too embarrassed to broach the subject at all, expecting 'em to pick up info off the streets. Even so, I guess it's really up to the local school districts to decide how much of a favor they're gonna do the kids. Enlightened ones will teach the subject thoroughly, those still ruled by the Powers of Darkness won't.
-Tock

**tryingtogetbig** · 02-07-2004, 09:14 AM

It is not the school's responsibility to teach sex. That is the parents. If the parents don't do it, shame on them...not shame on the school system.

Schools aren't in place to raise kids. They shouldn't have to teach manners, respect, discipline, social skills, etc. That is the parents job. Period.

Schools teach reading, writing, arithmetic and history. Period.

I don't care if there are bad parents out ther...why should the good parents have to pay a price because of the bad parents.

If you have kids, or nieces/nephews, think about sex ed in school and how much you really want them going over. Think about some of the teachers, throughout the US, and if you REALLY want some of those individuals giving their slant on sex and sexual activities. I would not want a homosexual teaching sex ed to anyone in my family...and I'm sure that homosexuals wouldn't want a gay-bashing extremist teaching their child. It should be done at home. Period. That way the family decides when, how much, what slant, etc.

P.S....my wife is a teacher. I do have some inside scoop on this.

peace,

ttgb

**groverman1** · 02-07-2004, 09:29 AM

Well for those who are against the usage of God in the pledge of allegiance then just dont say it. This country was founded primarily because of religious oppression in England. I think everyone should learn a little about other religions to broaden their worldy knowlege but as far as sex education, why can't the kids parents teach him or her about it? The only thing I learned in sex education was how to put a condom on a bannana, but hell I was already putting them on my own bannana by then. Perhaps they could offer the class and give a syllabus to the parents and if they like it then they could sign them up.

**palme** · 02-07-2004, 11:22 AM

Originally Posted by symatech

1)a teacher got naked in front of her class to better explain the human body
2)a teacher had sex with the boys in her class to help them in their 'education'
3)a teacher was raped at the end of a class and the kids just sat around saying 'well isnt this what she taught us'

Have #3 really happend!? You got to be kidding!

I dont see any need for schools teaching about sex, we have porn.

j/k dont kill me!

**monster.** · 02-07-2004, 11:33 AM

If i remember correctly, Sex education didn't promote abstinence, nor did it promote being a whore, haha.. It went into detail about, how children are conceived, puberty, birth control, STD's.. etc. I can agree with whoever said let the parents teach the kids, but i can safely assume that some parents aren't that responsible to teach their own kids.. I think they should keep sex ed. in the schools.. At the least that is a last resort for some kids that have no idea about the subject..

TTGB, lol... you made me crack up!!!!!!!!! PERIOD... I disagree bro, Sex education is just like any other subject.. It needs to be taught correctly, and effectively for kids to understand.. There is nothing wrong with parents teaching their kids about the 'birds and the bees', but there also should be a place where kids can go to learn about that subject.. As far as the parents responsibility to raise their children with discipline, respect, social skills etc.. I think it is important to understand, that kids ultimately learn those skills from role models.. If their parents are alcoholics, and drug addicts, chances are they lack in certain qualitites that they should be taught by their parents.. By all means, teaching a kid to be an adult is not the teachers responsibility, but the kid shouldn't be slandered and put down for it.. "Oh your a piece of sh!t..haha" I can safely assume that kids take in a tremendous amount about themselves, life etc. from being at school.. Not just the academics..

I can't see sex ed being a big deal in the first place.. As long as they don't have perverts running that class, i think its a neccessary course to take..

**Red Ketchup** · 02-07-2004, 11:41 AM

I feel religion and government should never EVER mix.

If anyone knows the history of the province of Quebec, you know that from it's creation all the way to the late 1970's the Catholic church literally RAN the province, tows and villages. It's well known that up 'till then, the Arch Dioscese had more power than the provincial government. In most towns and villages, the elected officials defered most decisions to the parrish Priest.

As a result, the church basically ran everything (all school boards were denominational), all educational curriculum was decided by the church, no elected official took a position on anything before consulting with the church, they had unbelievable financial advantages and got away with more serious crimes (from financial to sexual) than anyone will ever know.

All this came to a crashing halt in the late 70's with the "Tranquil Revolution", where a vast part of the Quebec population got completely fed up and rejected religion completely. Since then the church lost ALL control over the state.

I've seen it both ways (as well as the messy transition period) and lets be honest... I prefer things with the church completely separate from the state.

As for sex ed in school, I am all for it AS LONG AS it keeps to biological facts. It's biology, learning about puberty is learning about your body, it's a school subject just like any other. Learning options to protect a sexual encounter (from abstinance to contraception) is also in order. Ignorance about this kills and ruins lives.

On the other hand, (again in my opinion) there is no need for the school system to get into teaching about relationships, lifestyles and stuff like that. That is a touchy subject as you get into morals and customs. A big no-no. Should be left to the family or an appropriate support group of the familys choice.

Just my 2 cents worth of course

Red

**daman1** · 02-07-2004, 11:42 AM

They taught it when I was in 7th grade I believe. She pretty much preached abstinence, but said if we ever did have sex to use protection. She then whipped out a pickle and started putting a rubber on it. We were all like, "uhhhh." I think it should be taught, just not the extremes as the three facts listed by symatech.

**monster.** · 02-07-2004, 11:42 AM

Originally Posted by Red Ketchup

As for sex ed in school, I am all for it AS LONG AS it keeps to biological facts. It's biology, learning about puberty is learning about your body, it's a school subject just like any other. Learning options to protect a sexual encounter (from abstinance to contraception) is also in order. Ignorance about this kills and ruins lives.

On the other hand, (again in my opinion) there is no need for the school system to get into teaching about relationships, lifestyles and stuff like that. That is a touchy subject as you get into morals and customs. A big no-no. Should be left to the family or an appropriate support group of the familys choice.

Red

Took the words out of my mouth!!!!!!!!

**Mr. Death** · 02-07-2004, 11:46 AM

This has nothing to do with the seperation of church and state. The only thing that could possibly violate the seperation of church and state would be a law establishing a state church. That is what is in the constitution. People associate subjects such as this to the seperation of church and state way to freely, when they have no connection whatsoever. IMO, it is obvious that children need to be taught the basic biology of sex in school, but when teaching about human sexuality it is far better to teach abstinence than to just pass out condoms and ask them to be careful. Especially when the children are as young as 12 years old. I would hope that no parent on this webpage would want their school giving a condom to their 12 year old daughter. Also, I don't see what this has to do with the any religious organizations. Many of them promote abstinence, but so do most non-religious people. I am an athiest and I support abstinence. It would seem to be more of a common perspective issue than a religious one.

**hoss827** · 02-07-2004, 11:50 AM

p1)a teacher got naked in front of her class to better explain the human body
2)a teacher had sex with the boys in her class to help them in their 'education'
3)a teacher was raped at the end of a class and the kids just sat around saying 'well isnt this what she taught us'

What the f uck????

I was taught sex ed in 5th grade...We had to get a permission slip signed by our parents permitting us to take the class.....Why dont they just do that????????

**daman1** · 02-07-2004, 11:53 AM

Originally Posted by hoss827

What the f uck????

I was taught sex ed in 5th grade...We had to get a permission slip signed by our parents permitting us to take the class.....Why dont they just do that????????

That's actually not a bad idea. Make sure the school puts on the slip everything that will be discussed, etc...

**Mr. Death** · 02-07-2004, 11:55 AM

Originally Posted by hoss827

What the f uck????

I was taught sex ed in 5th grade...We had to get a permission slip signed by our parents permitting us to take the class.....Why dont they just do that????????

Good point. I think if schools do have a sex ed class the parents should know what the cirriculum is and be able to excuse their children if they think the subject matter is inappropriate.

**symatech** · 02-07-2004, 01:31 PM

i think you guys did not read what i wrote after the 3 examples. "immediately after these arguments were made they were sure to point out that "none of these HAD happened but they COULD happen if we teach sex ed"

basically, there were some people preaching that this is possible if you teach sex ed in school. they were also claiming that it would somehow be against the will of the church to teach sed ed in school and therefore should not be done. this is clearly related to church and state.

mr death, I disagree. I think it has everything to do with church and state. There is a heap of legislation drawn strictly from church guidlines. on what is morally right and wrong. abortion for example (but thats for another thread) so I think it has everything to do with church and state. there are two sides to everything. the church is not automatically 'right'

Personally, i could not believe when they said they didnt want to teach sex ed because the 3 examples above COULD happen. I can play the What if game all day long but it doesnt amount to dry ****. I could die driving to work in the morning, that doesnt mean i should stay home the rest of my life....

**spywizard** · 02-07-2004, 01:40 PM

I don't think it has anything to do with church and state..

The parents of a child have the right to teach that child thier moral standards,

Not the dictated morality of someone else..

that is what is at issue..

Then the school come back with the argument that some families won't teach anything to the children.. thus endangering the child...

example is... a 14 yr old girl believing she will not get pregnant if she has sex standing up......... and yes it still happens..

Originally Posted by symatech

i think you guys did not read what i wrote after the 3 examples. "immediately after these arguments were made they were sure to point out that "none of these HAD happened but they COULD happen if we teach sex ed"

basically, there were some people preaching that this is possible if you teach sex ed in school. they were also claiming that it would somehow be against the will of the church to teach sed ed in school and therefore should not be done. this is clearly related to church and state.

mr death, I disagree. I think it has everything to do with church and state. There is a heap of legislation drawn strictly from church guidlines. on what is morally right and wrong. abortion for example (but thats for another thread) so I think it has everything to do with church and state. there are two sides to everything. the church is not automatically 'right'

Personally, i could not believe when they said they didnt want to teach sex ed because the 3 examples above COULD happen. I can play the What if game all day long but it doesnt amount to dry ****. I could die driving to work in the morning, that doesnt mean i should stay home the rest of my life....

**Tock** · 02-07-2004, 03:07 PM

Originally Posted by groverman1

Well for those who are against the usage of God in the pledge of allegiance then just dont say it.

That's all well and good, but the question is, does the government have the right to require schoolkids to say they live in "one nation under God" if they don't beleive in God (or even if they do)?
I don't think so . . .
-Tock

**Mr. Death** · 02-07-2004, 03:39 PM

Originally Posted by symatech

i think you guys did not read what i wrote after the 3 examples. "immediately after these arguments were made they were sure to point out that "none of these HAD happened but they COULD happen if we teach sex ed"

basically, there were some people preaching that this is possible if you teach sex ed in school. they were also claiming that it would somehow be against the will of the church to teach sed ed in school and therefore should not be done. this is clearly related to church and state.

mr death, I disagree. I think it has everything to do with church and state. There is a heap of legislation drawn strictly from church guidlines. on what is morally right and wrong. abortion for example (but thats for another thread) so I think it has everything to do with church and state. there are two sides to everything. the church is not automatically 'right'

Personally, i could not believe when they said they didnt want to teach sex ed because the 3 examples above COULD happen. I can play the What if game all day long but it doesnt amount to dry ****. I could die driving to work in the morning, that doesnt mean i should stay home the rest of my life....

I agree that if anyone thinks those three situations are possible they are grossly misguided, and that is a ridiculous argument against sex ed in schools.

The only thing our constitution guards against in regards to the seperation of church and state is the legislation of the establishment of a state church. If the government wants to make laws that are drawn from any religious text that is completely within their right as our constitution is written.

**Phillyboy1** · 02-07-2004, 03:47 PM

Originally Posted by tryingtogetbig

It is not the school's responsibility to teach sex. That is the parents. If the parents don't do it, shame on them...not shame on the school system.

Schools aren't in place to raise kids. They shouldn't have to teach manners, respect, discipline, social skills, etc. That is the parents job. Period.

Schools teach reading, writing, arithmetic and history. Period.

I don't care if there are bad parents out ther...why should the good parents have to pay a price because of the bad parents.

If you have kids, or nieces/nephews, think about sex ed in school and how much you really want them going over. Think about some of the teachers, throughout the US, and if you REALLY want some of those individuals giving their slant on sex and sexual activities. I would not want a homosexual teaching sex ed to anyone in my family...and I'm sure that homosexuals wouldn't want a gay-bashing extremist teaching their child. It should be done at home. Period. That way the family decides when, how much, what slant, etc.

P.S....my wife is a teacher. I do have some inside scoop on this.

peace,

ttgb

**** we got in alot of arguements in that other thread but your spot on with this topic. i agree with everything your saying. sex and that matter should be taught by the parents, as well as manners, etc...

now on the topic of church and state, i think they definatly should be kept very very very far away from each other. its bad enough the M.E. thinks we are on a crusade against the muslim religion. we dont need the church and state being in bed with each other at all....

**Mr. Death** · 02-07-2004, 03:49 PM

Originally Posted by Tock

That's all well and good, but the question is, does the government have the right to require schoolkids to say they live in "one nation under God" if they don't beleive in God (or even if they do)?
I don't think so . . .
-Tock

I don't think there is anything wrong with a school requiring its students to say The Pledge of Allegiance, but individuals students should be allowed to refrain if they object. I just don't understand what the big fuss is about. I am an atheist, and I don't mind saying "one nation under God", or "In God we Trust" being on our money. What is so offensive about it? Some people believe in God. Some don't. What's the big deal?

**956Vette** · 02-07-2004, 03:54 PM

symatech, go download the south park episode entitled: proper condom use. itll have all the answers you are looking for

**Tock** · 02-07-2004, 05:00 PM

Originally Posted by Mr. Death

I don't think there is anything wrong with a school requiring its students to say The Pledge of Allegiance, but individuals students should be allowed to refrain if they object. I just don't understand what the big fuss is about. I am an atheist, and I don't mind saying "one nation under God", or "In God we Trust" being on our money. What is so offensive about it? Some people believe in God. Some don't. What's the big deal?

===========

For starters, suppose the religion you belong to uses the term "Lord And Lady" (for Wiccans) or "Ahura Mazda" (for Zoroasterians) or whatever for the name of your deity, and the state says you have to use the customary Christian term. For starters, that violates the US Constitution, as it prefers one religion over another. Picture the uproar if the kids were required to say, "One nation under Allah." That would get struck down in no time flat. Makes no difference who's deity's name is used, 'cause whichever one the state says you gotta say, it's a government preference of that particular religion over any other.

Second, the Supreme Court ruled that there is an element of coercion exercised upon a schoolkid where the state says everyone has to say "one nation under God" while allowing the kid to opt out of the requirement, because it makes the kid into a conspicuous dissenter, and no one should have to dissent like that to exercise their right not to be required to say "one nation under God" because of the coercive nature of having to be "the only one to complain." There's been situations where obnoxious teachers have said, "Ok, now everyone is going to recite the pledge, except Johnny." Of course, everyone stares at Johnny, and he goes home crying, saying, "Mommy mommy why can't I say the pledge like everyone else?" It's bull**** for the gov't to put that sort of pressure on kids to conform on religious matters.

Third, to opt out of the requirement, the state requires you to indicate that you don't want to participate in the religious stuff; and the government in no way is permitted to ask a person what their religious opinions are or even if they have any at all. That's been ruled unconstitutional. So when they say "Anyone who wishes to opt out of this religious stuff has to tell us beforehand," they can't do that, because that would be the gov't asking what religious stuff a person wanted to participate in, or to avoid. They can't do that. You don't want them doing that. You don't want the gov't keeping this sort of information on people, on who beleives in what and who doesn't.
. . . I'm starting to rant here . . .

Anyway, check out the Supreme Court ruling on
SCHOOL DISTRICT OF ABINGTON TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL. v. SCHEMPP ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
PENNSYLVANIA. No. 142.
Argued February 27-28, 1963.
Decided June 17, 1963. *

at

http://atheism.about.com/gi/dynamic/...mp%3Binvol=203

It explains the reasoning behind the school prayer ruling (actually, it IS the ruling) and includes not only the Schemp case but the (Madelyn) Murray O'Hair case. Makes for good reading . . .

Here's the Supreme Court's general pronouncement on the case, including its opinion on allowing kids to opt out of the requirement . . .

"Because of the prohibition of the First Amendment against the enactment by Congress of any law "respecting an establishment of religion," which is made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, no state law or school board may require that passages from the Bible be read or that the Lord's Prayer be recited in the public schools of a State at the beginning of each school day - even if individual students may be excused from attending or participating in such exercises upon written request of their parents. Pp. 205-227. "

That's it . . .
-Tock

**Mr. Death** · 02-07-2004, 05:24 PM

Originally Posted by Tock

===========

For starters, suppose the religion you belong to uses the term "Lord And Lady" (for Wiccans) or "Ahura Mazda" (for Zoroasterians) or whatever for the name of your deity, and the state says you have to use the customary Christian term. For starters, that violates the US Constitution, as it prefers one religion over another.

That doesn't violate the seperation of church and state. The government can prefer a religion all they want without violation. It is only a violation if they establish a state church through legislation.

Originally Posted by Tock

"Because of the prohibition of the First Amendment against the enactment by Congress of any law "respecting an establishment of religion," which is made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, no state law or school board may require that passages from the Bible be read or that the Lord's Prayer be recited in the public schools of a State at the beginning of each school day

The Pledge of Allegiance isn't from the Bible.

**Tock** · 02-07-2004, 06:09 PM

Originally Posted by Mr. Death

1) That doesn't violate the seperation of church and state. The government can prefer a religion all they want without violation. It is only a violation if they establish a state church through legislation.

2) The Pledge of Allegiance isn't from the Bible.

1) Well, I suppose it doesn't make much difference if we agree or not, ultimately these things end up being challenged by the ACLU or in the Supreme Court and get knocked down. Happens all the time.

2) True. Nothing religious about it at all other than the "under God" bit that the gov't requires schoolkids to say. Actually, I understand that the pledge originated in the late 1800's and was written by a communist or socialist to further his particular social agenda. The words "under God" were added in 1953 during the height of the McCarthy commie-baiting, blacklisting era to prove that America was more virtuous than the Soviet Union because we pledged "under God." It's all pretty silly, but then, lots of laws are . . . after all, they want to throw all of us in the klink for importing stuff . . .
--Tock

ttuPrincess · 02-07-2004, 06:14 PM

Originally Posted by tryingtogetbig

It is not the school's responsibility to teach sex. That is the parents. If the parents don't do it, shame on them...not shame on the school system.

Schools aren't in place to raise kids. They shouldn't have to teach manners, respect, discipline, social skills, etc. That is the parents job. Period.

Schools teach reading, writing, arithmetic and history. Period.

But not all parents are capable of telling their children about sex.... mine didn't I had to learn from school...

I believe that sex ed should be taught in school...... yes abstinance should be discussed, but I mean seriosly think about it.... how many kids wait to have sex??? Without proper information that schools can provide about condoms and safe sex kids are gonna go out there not being prepaired....

When I have kids, YES I want to be part of thier learning experience about sex.... but I feel that they should learn from school also, because it's having to little information that causes teenage pregnancy, not to much information, and any information about such a seriose subject is welcome by me to help in raising my children.

***50%Natural*** · 02-07-2004, 06:22 PM

Tock, I think you've been out of school too long

. When I was in elementary school like 13 years ago, if you didn't want to say the pledge based on religion, you didn't have to. Also, isn't allah and god the same person? Just with a different name? i was under the impression that most organized religions(not those extreme ones you can name) believed in one almighty god/allah/whoever?

I also agree that sex education in school has nothing to do with religion...I remember seeing sex ed videos in 4th grade...oh making sly ass remarks to the girls after wards

***50%Natural*** · 02-07-2004, 06:23 PM

btw, the new craze in middle school is for girls to have anal sex so they keep their virginity intacted. Crazy and stupid, but they think it is safer that way

Hoss, that's your cue...

**symatech** · 02-07-2004, 06:37 PM

Ok, I see why you are saying it has nothing to do with religion. I think I associated it with religion because it was some christian organization (perhaps the knights of collumbus) who were trying to get them not to teach sex ed in schools...they are the ones who made the 3 examples and that was there reason for it....and they were dead serious. on another note, religious focus groups lobby heavily for legislation. do you think they should be allowed to?

Princess brings up a good point too. I believe it is the parents responsibility, but not all parents are going to do so. So what do we do with the children whose parents do not teach them sex ed. and if they cant learn it in school its pretty much trial and error yes? trial and error is all right and good in some things, but when it comes to sex, the 'error' could mean pregnancy, stds etc. what about 'no child left behind' does it strictly mean academic??? if so then whats the point as academics are a small part of life.

Mr Death - the government can prefer a religion if they want, but what happens when you do not belong to the prefferred religion? for example, i think we all would agree that our gov. does not prefer muslims to baptists. but we are all equal right? why should a southern baptist not be a prime target for incarceration and a muslim should? not all muslims are terrorists. not all baptists are good people. I see something very inherently wrong with this notion. what if the higher offices of the USA were filled with muslims. dont you think there are many who would bitch about saying one nation under allah?

**symatech** · 02-07-2004, 06:39 PM

Originally Posted by 50%Natural

btw, the new craze in middle school is for girls to have anal sex so they keep their virginity intacted. Crazy and stupid, but they think it is safer that way

Hoss, that's your cue...

the latest craze? my middle school craze was jumping off of roofs and fire escapes. middle school crazes may as well be the next reality tv.

**groverman1** · 02-07-2004, 08:18 PM

I agree with Hoss for once.

**Mr. Death** · 02-07-2004, 10:20 PM

Originally Posted by symatech

Mr Death - the government can prefer a religion if they want, but what happens when you do not belong to the prefferred religion? for example, i think we all would agree that our gov. does not prefer muslims to baptists. but we are all equal right? why should a southern baptist not be a prime target for incarceration and a muslim should? not all muslims are terrorists. not all baptists are good people. I see something very inherently wrong with this notion. what if the higher offices of the USA were filled with muslims. dont you think there are many who would bitch about saying one nation under allah?

No, not all Muslims are terrorists, but most terrorists are Muslims. How many Southern Baptist terrorists have you seen in the news? This is why racial profiling is necessary. The majority of certain crimes are commited by people with a particular background. If you are looking for a terrorist, you will probably want to begin with the Arab or Muslim community. If you are looking for a child molester, you will probably want to begin in the white community. If you search for all crimes in the general population without constructing a profile of who you are after, nothing will ever get done. In regard to the "one nation under Allah" comment, that would assume that what we are currently saying is "one nation under Jesus". That isn't what we are saying. God is a generic term for any religious deity. Muslims also call Allah "God".

**Tock** · 02-08-2004, 11:50 AM

Originally Posted by 50%Natural

1) Tock, I think you've been out of school too long

. When I was in elementary school like 13 years ago, if you didn't want to say the pledge based on religion, you didn't have to.

2) Also, isn't allah and god the same person? Just with a different name? i was under the impression that most organized religions(not those extreme ones you can name) believed in one almighty god/allah/whoever?

3) I also agree that sex education in school has nothing to do with religion...I remember seeing sex ed videos in 4th grade...oh making sly ass remarks to the girls after wards

1) Problem is that here in Texas, it's mandatory unless the parent sends a written note asking the child to be excused. I don't know what happens next, if the kid is supposed to sit down while everyone else stands and goes through the ritual, or has to stand in the back of the room, or stand in the hall until the festivities are over. But, as was noted by the Supreme Court in 1963, this sort of treatment is not allowed, as turning the kid into a conspicuous non-conformist exercises a coercive effect, and the gov't ain't allowed to coerce anyone into religious stuff.

2) Can't really say, 'cause IMHO, neither one exists. As far as they're concerned, I'd suppose that Jews, Christians, and Muslims would take strong exception if they were coerced into uttering the name of an infidel religion's deity.

3) So . . . you've always been as charming as you are now, eh?
--Tock

**Tock** · 02-08-2004, 12:08 PM

Originally Posted by Mr. Death

No, not all Muslims are terrorists, but most terrorists are Muslims.

I see you are unfamiliar with recent Israeli history.
The right-wing Jewish fundamentalists there decided God (Jehovah, whatever) had given them the real estate currently occupied by Palestinians. So, accompanied by the Israeli armed forces, they bulldozed Palestinian villages and built their own settlements. Now Israel is in the process of building a big-ass wall outside their own borders--in some places running 9 miles inside Palestine--and dividing some existing Palestinian communities.
The Palestinians see this, and watch the US giving Israel $9 billion a year for foreign aid, and make the connection that the US is funding their oppression, and it's stuff like this that pisses them off, motivates terrorists to want to kill Americans.
IMHO, the smartest thing the US could do with its foreign relations is to badger Israel to pull back to the borders the UN established back in 1947, and maybe set a demilitarize zone between Israel and Palestine, sorta like what seperates North and South Korea. This is one of those things that the UN has voted on, and the vote was the entire rest of the planet against Israel and the US. It's really crazy. It's one major reason why those Arabs hate us. Fix this problem, and then the Moslem religious fanatics will lose support, and the US will have an easier time buying oil from them, and then y'all driving fat-ass gas guzzlers can buy 50 cent a gallon gasoline again . . .
--Tock

**chicamahomico** · 02-08-2004, 01:36 PM

Keep the middle east BS out of this, it will ruin the discussion which up till that point was excellent.

Some excellent points on this thread. I have a hard time understanding much of the concerns of the camp that thinks kids shouldn't have complete sex eduction in class but be taught only by their parents. And complete means everything from human biology, detailed explanations, putting condoms on cucumbers and a thourough discussion of lifestyle choices. Education is supposed to increase people's understanding or at least make them aware of some basic facts. The end result hopefully being that they are more tolerant and willing to accept other people and their points of view. Bottom line, I don't think you can lose with in school sex education.

**spywizard** · 02-08-2004, 02:18 PM

Maybe this will help......

You give birth to a child... it is a representation of you.. you house it, cloth it, share your life with it...

do you want that child to be a monument to you??? or to people of the state..

A child is a wonderful thing........... to mold a mind is a huge responsability...

Example.... you stated children should be taught sex ed........ that's your opinion..

In my example.. my 2 daughters... were taught survival techniques.. eating from the wilderness.. to survive in cold and heat, and water....

to shoot over 15 different guns....... to fight with a knife, hand to hand, and different throwing devices..

They both are "A" students.. 1 finished college in 3 years.. the other is working in the mortgage industry..

neither of them are pregnant, and both are in stable relationships (with men) and both of those men are successful in business.

both of my girls came and told me when they had decided to become sexually active.. (i had the sex talk with them...at age 12, 13,14,15,16,17) they finally told thier mother just before they moved in with the guys..

they Both made decissions to pray in school.. (public)... and will debate with anyone thier rights to do so.......

On the other hand, i have argued the rights of the children to have access to proper sex education, and medical support provided by the state, and have done so with the school districts..

So............. ignorance is a bad thing...........

knowledge without guidance is just as bad.......

Originally Posted by chicamahomico

Keep the middle east BS out of this, it will ruin the discussion which up till that point was excellent.

Some excellent points on this thread. I have a hard time understanding much of the concerns of the camp that thinks kids shouldn't have complete sex eduction in class but be taught only by their parents. And complete means everything from human biology, detailed explanations, putting condoms on cucumbers and a thourough discussion of lifestyle choices. Education is supposed to increase people's understanding or at least make them aware of some basic facts. The end result hopefully being that they are more tolerant and willing to accept other people and their points of view. Bottom line, I don't think you can lose with in school sex education.

**Tock** · 02-08-2004, 02:23 PM

Originally Posted by spywizard

they Both made decissions to pray in school.. (public)... and will debate with anyone thier rights to do so.......

knowledge without guidance is just as bad.......

That's cool . . .
As far as I'm concerned, if a kid wants to pray in public school, go ahead. Incidently, that's the position of the Supreme Court as well.
The thing is that the gov't shouldn't be telling kids what to pray or who to pray to. And they can't . . . well, not legally.
-Tock

**Elliot** · 02-08-2004, 02:26 PM

as far as the sex ed goes. my parents never had a sex talk with me. they never told me the risks of aids/hiv, stds or more importantly pregnancy. if it wasnt for school i would have been having unprotected sex and by now would have had a kid and/or a std or worst... maybe my parents are irresponsipble but i've been raised up in a way where i acuierd all my knowlage throught school or outside reading. my parents havnt really thought me that much. i envy all thoes kids that had thier father teach them how to shave or how to drive a car. but hey what doesnt kill you only makes you stronger right..?

**spywizard** · 02-08-2004, 02:46 PM

Cool.......I think this is one of the first times you and i have agreed on anything.......lol

The issue 10 years ago....here in Minnesota........ a liberal state......... it was frowned on to pray even silently......

It was a big deal... and there were alot of lawsuits........

I agree it isn't required.. but it has to be allowed as long as it dosen't interfere with the operation of the school.......... and teaching..

peace

Originally Posted by Tock

That's cool . . .
As far as I'm concerned, if a kid wants to pray in public school, go ahead. Incidently, that's the position of the Supreme Court as well.
The thing is that the gov't shouldn't be telling kids what to pray or who to pray to. And they can't . . . well, not legally.
-Tock

**Tock** · 02-08-2004, 03:25 PM

Originally Posted by Elliot

as far as the sex ed goes. my parents never had a sex talk with me. they never told me the risks of aids/hiv, stds or more importantly pregnancy. if it wasnt for school i would have been having unprotected sex and by now would have had a kid and/or a std or worst... maybe my parents are irresponsipble but i've been raised up in a way where i acuierd all my knowlage throught school or outside reading. my parents havnt really thought me that much. i envy all thoes kids that had thier father teach them how to shave or how to drive a car. but hey what doesnt kill you only makes you stronger right..?

One of the more interesting aspects of the conflict between liberals and conservatives is that one group (for the most part) holds that even if the parents don't take care of the kids, the state has no obligation to take up the slack, while the other group feels that yes, when parents drop the ball on things like sex ed, or basic health care, it's the government's responsibility to take care of them.
IMHO both sides of the dispute have merit . . . probably mass neutering and spaying of the irresponsible adult human population would be the smart thing to do . . .
--Tock

**tryingtogetbig** · 02-08-2004, 04:18 PM

Originally Posted by Tock

IMHO both sides of the dispute have merit . . . probably mass neutering and spaying of the irresponsible adult human population would be the smart thing to do . . .
--Tock

Best thing I have heard in a long time!!

Tock, but since "teaching" everything is so important, how can we automatically excuse a child from learning the pledge of allegiance, including "under God" just becasue they don't want to. A parent's note should be required in order for the child to not say it. It's too important a part of our country's history.

After reading through the posts, I could probably agree that teaching the "fundamentals" of sex, risks associated with sex, rumors, facts and statistics, etc. would be appropriate...as long as the parents are supplied the opportunity of knowing who is teaching the class and what the curriculum will be.

peace,

ttgb

**tryingtogetbig** · 02-08-2004, 04:23 PM

Originally Posted by Tock

One of the more interesting aspects of the conflict between liberals and conservatives is that one group (for the most part) holds that even if the parents don't take care of the kids, the state has no obligation to take up the slack, while the other group feels that yes, when parents drop the ball on things like sex ed, or basic health care, it's the government's responsibility to take care of them.
IMHO both sides of the dispute have merit . . . probably mass neutering and spaying of the irresponsible adult human population would be the smart thing to do . . .
--Tock

Tock you well know that I am very conservative and do agree with most of the ideals from the right side. But I did want to clarify one point you made about not providing health care, etc. to those citizins (heavy emphasis on "citizens") that cannot fend for themselves. I do believe in providing food stamps, unemployment, health care for those that aren't able to provide for themselves...BUT, only for a limited amount of time.

I get sick and tired of seeing these people on welfare, food stamps, etc and still having babies, getting paid more a month for more babies and them living off of it their whole lives. What really pisses me off is seeing some of the welfare kids showing up at school with their Mom dropping them off in a brand new $30,000 car. They can't afford lunch for their kids or school supplies, but they will have a brand new car, kick ass stereo system in it and all of them wearing $150 nike shoes. That is ridiculous and NOT the American way...IMO.

peace,

ttgb